In the Interest of J.S.-g., Minor Child, R.S., Mother
16-0794
| Iowa Ct. App. | Aug 17, 2016Background
- DHS removed J.S.-G. from mother after a 2014 incident (assault on maternal grandmother) and findings mother used methamphetamine; child was initially placed with maternal relatives.
- Child adjudicated CINA in Jan. 2015; both parents ordered to complete substance-abuse evaluations and follow recommendations.
- Mother entered and graduated inpatient treatment (Family Works), briefly cared for child, then relapsed several times, with intermittent treatment placements and unsuccessful outpatient participation; child returned to maternal relatives at times.
- In March 2016 mother was in Jackson Recovery (inpatient women-and-children program) and DHS placed the child with her; at an April review DHS and the guardian ad litem recommended the child remain with mother in the program.
- Father (living in Nebraska) and paternal grandmother testified the child should be placed with father; father had prior arrests, a history of substance abuse, and a past home-study denial related to a felony charge.
- Juvenile court orally ordered (and later wrote) custody transferred to father despite DHS and guardian recommending continued placement with mother; mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court had clear and convincing evidence to transfer custody under Iowa Code §232.102(5) | Mother: No clear and convincing evidence that transfer was necessary to protect the child from physical abuse or other harm that justified transfer; DHS and GAL recommended mother | Father: Placement with father preferable; father and paternal grandmother testified placement with mother in facility affected child negatively | Court: Reversed — record lacked clear and convincing evidence required to justify transfer (no specific articulable harm shown) |
| Whether transfer was contrary to best interests or welfare of child such that continuation with mother was improper | Mother: Continuation with mother (in Jackson Recovery) served child’s best interests; DHS and GAL concurred | Father: Claimed child’s behavior/development harmed by placement with mother; father able to provide home/stability | Court: Reversed — insufficient evidence that transfer promoted child’s best interests; DHS and GAL recommendations supported staying with mother |
| Whether statutory requirements (reasonable efforts, findings) for modification were satisfied | Mother: Statutory findings not supported by record; court merely recited requirements | State/DHS: Recommended continued placement with mother (did not oppose mother) | Court: Found juvenile court’s factual findings unsupported; should have maintained status quo (maternal grandmother) if not convinced of transfer necessity |
| Whether material and substantial change in circumstances was required post‑2004 amendments | Mother: Implied necessity of showing changed circumstances; challenged transfer adequacy | Father: Argued present facts justified transfer | Court: Noted pre‑2004 precedent but reversed on evidentiary grounds; did not rely on material-and-substantial-change requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.B., 753 N.W.2d 14 (Iowa 2008) (de novo review of CINA proceedings; appellate court gives weight to juvenile court findings)
- In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36 (Iowa 2014) (child's best interests are primary concern in CINA matters)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821 (Iowa 1991) (modification of custody traditionally required material and substantial change in circumstances)